The Pros and Cons of Animal Testing

10102012

The first article I read was from PETA. This article focused much less on fact than the emotional connection the reader has with animals. I didn’t see really any specific “facts” besides how they pointed out that the Animal Welfare Act doesn’t cover birds and mice which I do believe to be a flaw. They also point out the testing of harmful household cleaners and cosmetics on animals. I personally believe that we should only pursue animal research when it comes to health-related goals for humans. However, looking at PETA’s arguments we can see that they rely heavily on emotion from their audience hoping that they are die hard animal activists like them. Which assuming most people aren’t die hard animal activists their argument seems unintelligent and may get a negative view of PETA itself. In fact PETA uses the logical fallacy of using emotion to replace a valid or compelling argument. Looking at the other article we can see the heavy usage of facts in their article. The side represented in this article is AMP or Americans for Medical Progress. Within this article they go into specific diseases that have been aided in some way by animal testing and what the benefits to humans are. They go into great detail about the number of lives saved from certain diseases like leukemia and heart disease. AMP talks about how with the advancements due to animal testing something such as childhood leukemia is no longer a death sentence as it once was and is now treatable. On this side they successfully pair a heavy use of facts with an emotional appeal to the reader. So I believe that we should continue animal testing but we should retain a tighter hold on it especially when it comes to cosmetics testing which I believe should not continue.